what would it take to put ultimately put women back in their place?

[bigneil]

me and a friend were discussing this earlier. what would it take to ultimately put women back in their place? lets say we have an apocalyptic scenario...

That would do it. A natural environment, free of TV underwriting women's fantasies by creating the illusion that (to quote Nismo) "muscular, millionaries with Mercedes" (and terrorists for that matter) are abundant when they are exceedingly rare.

 

[zekko]

Of course, if such an apocalyptic event were to occur, the most powerful wealthy men with the most resources would end up with harems of beautiful women to take care of. While the beta guys would be left to fight over whatever scraps were left.

Women would seek out these harems so that they could be well cared for, and/or the powerful men would take them by force.

Fortunately, most everybody on these forums are alphas (note the wink, Iceberg), so I'm sure we would all have vast resources and harems, while sitting back laughing at all the AFCs.

 

[spang]

Of course, if such an apocalyptic event were to occur, the most powerful wealthy men with the most resources would end up with harems of beautiful women to take care of. While the beta guys would be left to fight over whatever scraps were left.

Women would seek out these harems so that they could be well cared for, and/or the powerful men would take them by force.

Fortunately, most everybody on these forums are alphas (note the wink, Iceberg), so I'm sure we would all have vast resources and harems, while sitting back laughing at all the AFCs.

well unless you got the walls of troy around said harem, me and my army of vengeance will destroy the place and take all your women. mwahahaha

 

[Iceberg]

Definitely not freaked out. But I was reading this old thread, which is currently on the front page, and you didn't get that I was joking in that one. But, sometimes I'm not as funny as I think I am.

http://www.sosuave.net/forum/showthread.php?t=170429

Well dammit, zekko. When a guy is right 99% of the time, he's wrong 1% of the time. It's science.

Fortunately, most everybody on these forums are alphas (note the wink, Iceberg), so I'm sure we would all have vast resources and harems, while sitting back laughing at all the AFCs.

WRONG!!!

 

[Bokanovsky]

me and a friend were discussing this earlier. what would it take to ultimately put women back in their place? lets say we have an apocalyptic scenario, lots of people die, and everybody loses it. dangerous strangers roam the land, food is short, we have to hunt our food or farm it, theres no medical help, no poleese, etc.

I don't think you need an apocalyptic scenario to put women back in their place. Just roll back the clock one hundred years and reinstitute the laws we had back then (and the early 20th century was hardly an apocalyptic time, by the way). All it would take is men collectively growing a spine.

If you think about it, women still depend on men for survival. Cops, soldiers, firefighters, surgeons, etc. are all overwhelmingly male. Any man can do a woman's job (let's face it, being a receptionist or an airline attendant is not that hard) but there are certain jobs that women simply cannot do. Heck, think of the construction industry. How many female construction workers do you know? If men stopped working in construction, we'd be back to living in caves.

Without men the comparatively safe and comfortable way of life that we are all used to would quickly disintegrate. And women know that too, even if they like to pretend otherwise. The only reason why women have a leg up on men in today's society is because men are stupid and pvssified and basically allow women to lord over them. Think of it as voluntary slavery.

 

[goodfoot]

But from where we are now, there is no way for that to happen short of some crisis. Any law changes in favor of men will be met with extreme female solidarity. That is their main advantage--there will always be men who will sell out for *****.

 

[Stagger Lee]

But from where we are now, there is no way for that to happen short of some crisis. Any law changes in favor of men will be met with extreme female solidarity. That is their main advantage--there will always be men who will sell out for *****.

It's kind of analogous to women being the unionized workers who bargained for high pay and benefits and reduced work load, while men are just taking what is offered to them, which is next to nothing, and falsely thinking they are independent and autonomous.

Really though once women were given the right to vote that eventually assured their complete control. Females are usually a slight majority and they are so gender-centric and self-centered they shouldn't be voting. It's like giving spoiled children the right to vote.

 

[Down Low]

You guys really should pay more attention to Burroughs' posts. He spelled it out for you. The currently existing system was set up by the elite to ensure that all women were their defacto harems. Men don't worry a second about whether some daddy or husband is going to cave in their skulls for making a pass at their woman. She isn't his women. She's married to the state -- which is the eunich bodyguard. She's any man's woman. That is, any man who can outbid other men for her attention at that moment.

This is a system of strict equality. All woman must be concubines in the common harem. Should any woman behave differently, it's propaganda-of-the-deed that's like acid splashed on the edifice.

Putting women back in their places is all about you convincing other men that you will beat them to death, immediately, if they even look at your woman. It's all about convincing your woman that you will beat her to death, immediately, if she even looks at another man.

 

[Stagger Lee]

You guys really should pay more attention to Burroughs' posts. He spelled it out for you. The currently existing system was set up by the elite to ensure that all women were their defacto harems. Men don't worry a second about whether some daddy or husband is going to cave in their skulls for making a pass at their woman. She isn't his women. She's married to the state -- which is the eunich bodyguard. She's any man's woman. That is, any man who can outbid other men for her attention at that moment.

This is a system of strict equality. All woman must be concubines in the common harem. Should any woman behave differently, it's propaganda-of-the-deed that's like acid splashed on the edifice.

Putting women back in their places is all about you convincing other men that you will beat them to death, immediately, if they even look at your woman. It's all about convincing your woman that you will beat her to death, immediately, if she even looks at another man.

I don't see it that way because the elite males get married, have children and businesses and have the most to lose from all the pro-female laws like sexual harassment, child support and divorce laws.

There may have been elite men behind the feminist movement, but they were not trying to create a harem. They were simply going along with women sticking it to the average joe but it got out of control. Feminism is just policies that allow female super-hypergamy.

I think different people had different agendas. The women themselves wanted to be separated from the husband and to be empowered hypergamous slvts, The "scientist" and social scientist believed that humans should pattern themselves after a pride of lions, libtrads wanted the government to become women's husbands, the capitalist wanted more cheap labor, the average male feminist collaborater was just angling for pvssy and spiting other men etc.

 

[goundra]

I doubt that money will mean much, if shtf, unless the wealthy men have done a LOT of prepping, (meaning that they paid someone else to do it for them) They can be and will be shot, like anyone else, over the huge demand for very scarce resources.